Another thing is that these findings should probably be true for any microscopic stuff. Once you get solids in the form of small particles the surface area grows as well as "corner effects" -- properties on the corners or at locations of high curvature can be quite different from a flat surface.

You are only allowed to agree with the article, are not you?

OK, I see your point, however, it does not mean that the US is never going to respond. Having trained pilots allows a choice, the lack of those limits this choice to no response in any case.

I really like your logic. The US can only do something when they feel like it is useful for the US. This is exactly how treaties work, I guess.

What if Putin attacks Estonia, which is a NATO country and the article 5 will be invoked?

What is your point? Pilots should not practice? Or, pilots must only practice in a safe manner?

But.. during a real conflict they will have to be effective quickly, you do not want them to start learning at that time. Safe flying is not a good strategy during a real conflict either. So.. What are you trying to say really?

That could be making sense, if Chinese only use distillation to train their models. However, if they truly use data and train their modes properly, then they will not slow down and will get significant time benefit, if the Western companies slow down. This idea to slow down does not look good at all, unless it is absolutely clear how suddenly everybody is slowing down.

Are you dumb? If there is something, there will always be a difference of opinion. Nothing is liked or disliked by everybody. OK, one person does not like a group of "brown" people. Then that person informs other people about this fact.

The person who does not like the group can be "racist" yes, but the statement itself is not racist. It is informational, and it can be 100% correct.

Just for the sake of logic. The statement "I don't like brown people" is not racist. It is a factual information about one's attitude towards a group of people.

This is the problem. You say "speech is dangerous" and this is why it is important to have "freedom of speech". However, there is "a limit". ... Well, where is the limit? Who decides where to put the limit? I bet if some speech is dangerous to the "entrenched powers", the powers will make sure that the limit is well below that.

Do I believe that there is dangerous speech? Absolutely. Do I think this is a "hate speech"? No. What is it exactly? I have been seeing how really bad speech was consider a hate one, now we have moved the post so much that not agreeing with something is already considered "hate speech" which real possibility to become a criminal offense.

This is why, speech should be protected and no, there is no such thing as "hate speech", not if you think about it carefully. Absolutely, there are threats, there are calls for unrest, there are insults. But would it be better if we just call them what they are an treat them accordingly? "Hate speech" to me sounds a lot like "contr-revolution" in Soviet Russia long time ago. Nobody really knew what it meant, but it sure sent a lot of people to Gulag.

What about freedom of speech? Why would anybody come up with this idea if the words are "mightier than the sword"?

You can say anything you want, but unless there is somebody who actually does something. You words will be just vibrations in the air. The person who does it... well it was his / her decision to actually do this. This is really not that complicated.

So, neither the mob nor the guy are responsible for lynching and throwing rocks? The words are... Right? This will stop when we will be holding the people who do bad things responsible and will stop blaming words for the damage bad people do.

This would be true if they have offices in there. Do they? Ali Express may well be doing something like this, but the way I used it.. Just order from them and they send the product by mail, I am not sure this qualifies for "doing business in EU".

I wonder. Ali Express is in China... Why would they care what EU does?

If the patient stops being a drug addict, I thinks it is a minor risk that he may have lower chances to become the next Leonardo da Vinci.